Professional Documents
Culture Documents
2d 1371
John W. Clark, Jr., and Amy K. Myers, Clark & Scott, PC, Birmingham,
Ala., Terrence H. Murphy, Klett, Lieber, Rooney & Schorling, Pittsburgh,
Pa., for petitioners.
H. Carey Walker, John F. Whitaker, Sadler, Sullivan, Herring & Sharp, P.C.,
Birmingham, Ala., for Lillie Sue Carter.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of
Alabama.
I. STATEMENT OF FACTS
7
Lillie Sue Carter was employed by Decorator when she underwent surgery in
July 1989.1 After surgery, she received medical permission to return to work,
but before she could return to work, Decorator laid her off. Decorator informed
her that she could continue her medical coverage under Decorator's employee
benefits plan (the "Plan") if she paid a portion of her premium.
Until March 1, 1990, the Plan's insurance carrier was Blue Cross and Blue
Shield of North Carolina ("Blue Cross"). On March 1, 1990, Decorator changed
the Plan's insurance carrier, substituting John Alden Life Insurance Company
("John Alden") for Blue Cross. Carter paid premiums for continued Plan
coverage until she was hospitalized again on March 29, 1990. Before reentering
the hospital, Carter received assurances from Decorator that she was covered
under the Plan, and that she would be picked up by the new insurance carrier.
However, when presented with Carter's claims for medical expenses incurred in
conjunction with Carter's rehospitalization, John Alden refused payment,
stating that Carter was not covered for pre-existing conditions.
10
11
On May 22, 1991, Carter moved to remand the case to state court, and on
March 31, 1992, the district court granted the motion in part. Finding that
Decorator's third-party claims against Blue Cross and John Alden were
"separate and independent" from Carter's claims against Decorator, the district
court held that removal was proper under 28 U.S.C.A. 1441(c).2 The district
court also concluded that Carter's claims against Decorator were
"improvidently removed" and that the district court was "without jurisdiction"
to hear those claims. The district court retained jurisdiction of Decorator's thirdparty claims against Blue Cross and John Alden, and remanded Carter's claims
against Decorator to state court for further proceedings.
12
II. ANALYSIS
13
We do not have the power to review the district court's remand order. Under 28
U.S.C.A. 1447(c) (Supp.1992), the district court may remand a case back to
state court "[i]f at any time before final judgment it appears that the district
court lacks subject matter jurisdiction." Unless the case involves a claim under
the Civil Rights Act, "[a]n order remanding a case to the State court from
which it was removed is not reviewable on appeal or otherwise." 1447(d).
14
15
The district court remanded Carter's claims against Decorator to state court
under 1447(c), stating that it was "without jurisdiction of the original action."
Because the district court's remand order was issued under 1447(c) and
because the order invoked lack of jurisdiction as the reason for remand, the
Thermtron exception does not apply. Accordingly, this Court may not review
the remand order.
16
17
In addition to lack of jurisdiction, the district court also stated as a reason for
remand that the original action had been "improvidently removed," apparently
relying on an earlier version of 1447(c).3 Decorator cites Air-Shields, Inc. v.
Fullam, 891 F.2d 63 (3d Cir.1989), for the proposition that because the district
court relied on a prior version of 1447, this Court has authority to review the
district court's remand order.
18
III. CONCLUSION
19
20
For the reasons that follow, I regret that I cannot join the majority. It is true that
the district court asserted the following two sentences denominated as her
"conclusion":
21
Based on the foregoing, the court concludes that it is without jurisdiction of the
original action, and that such action was improvidently removed. As set forth in
the accompanying order, the original action shall be remanded to the Circuit
Court of Winston County, Alabama.
22
Order of March 31, 1992 (emphasis added). However, the majority's opinion
does not indicate that between the district court's finding that
23
[u]nder
28 U.S.C. 1441(c) when a separate and independent claim over which the
court has original jurisdiction is joined with an otherwise nonremovable claim, the
court has removal jurisdiction over the entire case. The court may, however, in its
discretion, remand the underlying action to the state court.... For the reasons set forth
below, however, the court finds that the main action is due to be remanded to the
Circuit Court of Winston County....
24
and the above-stated "conclusion," the district court set out a five-page
discussion as to whether the "main action" was preempted by ERISA.
Presumably this analysis was undertaken to determine whether that court could
"remand all [such] matters in which State law predominates." See 28 U.S.C.
1441(c) (Supp.1992). Hence, a fair reading of the district court's order could
lead a reasonable attorney or jurist to conclude that had the district court
concluded that the "main action" was preempted under ERISA, she would not
have determined that State law predominates and would not have exercised her
discretion under 28 U.S.C. 1441(c) to remand such claims. The district court
entered its order on March 31, 1992, and did not have the benefit of our court's
decision in Sanson v. General Motors Corp., 966 F.2d 618 (11th Cir.1992),
which was published on July 15, 1992. Had the district court compared the
"main action" asserted in this case with that in Sanson, she well may have
concluded that such claim was preempted and not remanded the action.
25
Based upon the foregoing, the most logical conclusion is that remand in this
case was made pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1441 (c) and not pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
1447 (c). If this is so, then remand would arguably fall within the Thermtron
exception (i.e., remand was not made pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 14 47 (c)). As
noted by the majority, under Thermtron only remands made pursuant to 28
U.S.C. 1447(c) are immune from review. The fact that the district court
alluded only to 28 U.S.C. 1441 (c) as her basis for remand persuades me that
we are not prohibited from reviewing her erroneous remand, despite her
conclusion that she was "without jurisdiction of the original action" (a
differently worded criteria than section 1447(c)'s "lacks subject matter
jurisdiction"). Nowhere in her opinion did the district court even mention 28
U.S.C. 1447(c).
Honorable Daniel H. Thomas, Senior U.S. District Judge for the Southern
District of Alabama, sitting by designation
Prior to 1988, 1447(c) instructed district courts to remand a case "[i]f at any
time before final judgment it appears that the case was removed improvidently
and without jurisdiction."